Anuj Kumar Raut vs The State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 3316 Jhar

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                    (Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction)
                          B.A .No. 6072 of 2023
Anuj Kumar Raut                                          ... ... Petitioner
                                    Versus
The State of Jharkhand                                   ... ... Opposite Party
                                   ------

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA

-------

      For the Petitioner                 : Mr. Indrajit Sinha , Advocate
                                         : Mr. Rishav Kumar, Advocate
      For the State                      : Mrs. Kumari Rashmi, APP
                                      --------
06 /01.09. 2023
             Heard the learned counsels for the parties.

The petitioner is an accused in a case registered under sections 304(b)/ 34 and alternatively under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though initially the case has been lodged under section 304(b)/34 of the Indian Penal Code, the charge has already been framed in this case for the offence under section 304(b)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and alternatively under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Counsel further submits that this is a case in which the victim has herself committed suicide. It is further submitted that the victim was suffering from " Sessile GB Polyp" and the only cure for the disease is to remove gallbladder. The disease could also lead to cancer in the gallbladder. It is further submitted that the weight of the deceased was only 35 kgs and therefore, she was suffering from other related problems and therefore due to her illness she had taken step of consuming pesticides due to her depression. It is further submitted that there is no allegation of torture or cruelty. It is further submitted that petitioner himself had informed the family of the deceased regarding the situation of the deceased prior to her death and also taken her to hospital along with the family of the deceased and after death, during the cremation, he was also present there. It is further submitted that only three witnesses have been examined, therefore, under such circumstances, he may be allowed the bail. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment in "Charan Singh @ Charanjit Singh v. The State of Uttarakhand 2023 Live Law SC 341" where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

"23..........Mere death of the deceased being unnatural in the matrimonial home within seven years of marriage will not be sufficient to convict the accused under Section 304B and 498A

IPC."

Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the bail petition and submitted that that the allegation in the FIR is regarding demand of dowry of certain items accompanied with harassment and torture due to inability to fulfillment the demand of those items. Counsel further pointed out paragraph nos. 9 to 12 of the case diary which is the statements of the witnesses under investigation and said that all of them have in fact supported the prosecution case of demand of certain items and consequent to failure to fulfill the demand she was tortured and harassed and due to which victim has committed suicide. It is further submitted that as per para 30 of the supplementary case diary, the FSL report indicated the elements of poison in the report, therefore, bail should not be allowed to the petitioner.

Having heard both counsels, gone through the records of the case and in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to release the petitioner, named above, on bail.

Accordingly, the bail application of the petitioner is rejected.

(Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) Sharda/